Aikirooster, you'd believe in number 3 if you were on the receiving end of it like I was. Wasn't a cop, but it was an on scene authority who was obviously incompetent as hell.
TSA, what do you expect?
Actually have a friend who suffered big time on number 3 and in his case, it was cops.

Obviously, if we were talking worldwide, I would assume 1 and 3 would be much more at play and 2 in some places like maybe Britain.

In the USA Sarge, #3 is accurate for some personnel obviously, but I would say that is not the case nationwide or even a whole department. At times, in our history here, yes we have had some very corrupt departments but today that isn't as prevalent. Aditionally, when you said on scene authority, I thought you meant cops. If we're talking Security personnel, holy crap that's an awful word with law enforcement personnel in this country.

Yes I meant security personnel or what not as a whole. The guy you have to deal with at the scene of the incident that's supposed to help you.
I haven't really had to deal with real cops in the US so I can't really say myself. Never had to call one, never had one called on me.
However, with other "security" elements I have had many issues. If you are crappy at your job, at least you can make up for it by being polite. Unfortunately that seems to be asking for too much. Never underestimate the power of the smile. Everyone is a suspect, but don't let them know that.

Originally Posted by AikiRooster

Leaving innocent citizens alone is a great idea, in a perfect society. This will lead though to complacency and re-active policy. Yes, in the pro-active approach, the innocent may have to spend a little time for the powers that be to check them out to ensure their legitimacy but if they are truly innocent, this ought to not be much of a problem. We have to do the same thing when we get on a plane, go on a military base, so I don't see too much of an issue with adding to more parts of society to make the job the police have to do easier on them. Without this type of policy, the police hands are tied as they are now and have been for about good while now, and they have to wait for something to happen to justify the probable cause to do what this policy may help avoid in the first place.

There's a difference between pro-active and hyper pro-active. Community policing is pro-active this is a fishing expedition that may or may not pan out. You flood a nieghborhood and jack people up for ten days, yeah you'll bag some street level thugs. But your also gonna lose civic support (intel) in that nieghborhood. Then you go away and the sharks return to the tidal pool. There's better way's to do this.

I don't feel like my hands are tied. You just have to be more observant with your procedure than you used to be. I can still make all the same arrests just gotta keep up on the new "way" of doing things.

Now if the courts would hammer the scumbags it would be all good.

Unfortunately for us, in the court there is such a thing as the jury.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Innocents get caught in the punishment along with the criminals largely because of three factors:
1) Bureaucratic laziness
2) Political Correctness
3) On scene authority incompetence
In no particular order.
But political correctness has a lot to do with it.

I'm not surprised the caning worked well. If they're going to act like a bunch of children, treat them like a bunch of children.

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. It never ceases to maze me how many of these decisions seem to be little more than knee jerk reactions.

Incompetence is often borne of frustration, cops are also often poorly resourced, under paid and not backed up by the decisions of the courts. That's enough to make anyone "lose interest" occasionally.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. It never ceases to maze me how many of these decisions seem to be little more than knee jerk reactions.

Incompetence is often borne of frustration, cops are also often poorly resourced, under paid and not backed up by the decisions of the courts. That's enough to make anyone "lose interest" occasionally.

I agree. Suits ID a problem and come up with plans on the fly engineered to cause a big media splash with little in the way of lasting results.

Right now in the US Law Enforcement in many places is having a hard time recruiting qualified individuals. For the reasons you state and others.
So we are also suffering from a pool of talent. That means some agencies are lowering standards to put warm bodies in uniform.

Unfortunately SSgt, this is because a lot of folks who are qualified don't want to put up with the stress that comes with law enforcement in America. Your always under the microscope and rarely will the public defend you as an officer, or as as a civilian but even worse as an LEO. If many of the qualified folks do decide to go into law enforcement these days, they tend to go in agent type positions where they don't have to do too much of the out in the limelight, grunt work the uniformed folks do. The excessive PC standard turns many folks off to the job, I think.

I'd say that it also has to do with the pittance that most LEA's pay to guys who are supposed to run towards situations that a normal person runs away from. That and the benefit packages are jokes for the most part, pension funds are in danger and alot of major dept's want to cut pay and benefits to make up for short falls in other areas. The Fed's mandating locals to in essence do their jobs in some areas, and cutting funding at the same time.

I've seen veteran officers leave local agencies and go to ICE, DEA, BATF&E , FPS, CBP etc because the money is better and the stress is less.

Yes, also TSA with the Air Marshals took a lot of folks. With the Feds, it is much easier. Much more boring too usually. I was always dying to be asked for help from the locals or State so I could do some work.